Talk:Scenic painting (theatre)

historical view
This article seems to focus pretty much exclusively on the present day, and some of its comments about the past seem just wrong. For example, it says:
 * Traditionally, scenic painters are drawn from the ranks of scenic designers, and in many cases designers paint their own works.

But this isn't really true, at least if "traditionally" takes a view longer than a few decades. In 18th- and 19th-century European theatre, theatre painting (German Theatermalerei) was a full-fledged profession, often engaged in by serious painters for at least parts of their careers, and was rarely done by designers themselves. --Delirium (talk) 21:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Where do I start ?
Very rarely does the ineptitude of an article touch me. This one does as its a subject has been my professional skill for over thirty years.

Such poor structure and grammar, with obtuse assertions, obvious inacuracies, and paucity of knowledge. Normally I explain my edits in talk pages word-for-word, to an extent that they can run much longer than the actual article, but where do I start?

Delirium's comments are succinct: traditionally scenic painting was a profession in its own right; theatrical designers are a recent invention, perhaps with the exception of those few usually taking time off from architecture, such as Inigo Jones or the Bibiena family. There is no explanation of the modern separation between Scenic Painters and Scenic Artists - No, I've got to stop; I'm starting to treat this article with a seriousness it doesn't deserve.

I won't grace this article by saying it's only a stub: it's a complete travesty that I've tidied-up without changing the sense of the thing... compare the versions if you are interested.

Surely the insubstantial stuff here is covered in another article; can anybody point me in the right direction? If the subject is elsewhere - this article should be deleted. And the picture - what an advert for the profession - toshers painting a wall with rollers !

Acabashi (talk) 01:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * (Comment below copied from a discussion on my talk page, since it's relevant here.)
 * I'm not aware of a good article that covers this subject, even these two years later. The modern set-design angle is covered in a strange array of at least six other articles at scenic design, scenographer, scenography, stagecraft, set construction, and theatrical scenery. I don't know of anything covering classic scenic painting, though. I wouldn't object to a complete rewrite of this article, since it hasn't improved in years and none of it is cited. It seems like many of those articles ought to have better historical content, though some of it would overlap, so I'm not sure where it's best to put it. I would personally incline towards merging a bunch, but my guess is that people interested in the current status of those subjects (which seem to now be considered separate) would object to merging the articles. This article at least ought to be much better, though, and the articles on things like theatrical scenery could have a sentence or two that refers here. --Delirium (talk) 02:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I could not agree more with both of you. I have for a very long time noticed how compeletly strange all the Technical Theater articles are. I tried my hand at making everything more navigable by creating the Nav box, and i have had a discussion with another editor about expanding it( discusion can be seen here ). I agree many of the stagecraft articles should be merged there is no reason for Costume Design and Costume Designer, or the 5 different articles all relating to building scenery. I would be happy to help re-organize and prune all these articles, as i have tried before, but got way to overwhelmed... once you think you have found every article about a subject, more come out of the wood work.--Found5dollar (talk) 01:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)